link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/blagojevich.gone/index.html
I just found this article very interesting as it was very much about the symbolism of taking away the images and other traces of the former governor that could be found in the state capitol. The author writes that a crew "brought down the 5-foot-high sign [with Blagojevich's image on it] to make the official change" almost immediately after the Senate had voted to impeach Blagojevich. I thought it was interesting how the author of the article refers to taking down the sign as an "official change," almost as though it was only by removing the reminders of the governor that he was completely stripped of his power.
One of the maintenance workers was quoted as saying "Was that quick enough?" which exemplifies the eagerness to move on from the whole embarassing situation.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
"This isn't Milli Vanilli"
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/22/famed-quartet-played-recordings-tunes-inauguration/
I just thought this article was kind of interesting. It reminded me of how everything is expected to be perfect for the presidential inauguration. And I was reminded of the pressure that is on the shoulders of the musicians. To me, the presidential inauguration appears to be alot about ceremony. It's a huge deal, obviously, but it seems almost vital that everything go exactly as planned. It was interesting to me, too, how much those involved felt that he had to justify the decision the quartet made. Obviously a lot of people were watching the historic moment and they wanted it to go perfect, so they had justify themselves themselves to the audience, but also, I believe, it had something to do with the media. As we all know the media can be very attacking and I'm sure somewhere someone would have jumped on the "meaning behind the the pre-recording" or the huge "scam" of them not amplifying their music for everyone to hear if they hadn't explained it themselves. But it's still kind of sad really how, even such a simple and well-thought out decision would have likely been blown out of proportion.
I just thought this article was kind of interesting. It reminded me of how everything is expected to be perfect for the presidential inauguration. And I was reminded of the pressure that is on the shoulders of the musicians. To me, the presidential inauguration appears to be alot about ceremony. It's a huge deal, obviously, but it seems almost vital that everything go exactly as planned. It was interesting to me, too, how much those involved felt that he had to justify the decision the quartet made. Obviously a lot of people were watching the historic moment and they wanted it to go perfect, so they had justify themselves themselves to the audience, but also, I believe, it had something to do with the media. As we all know the media can be very attacking and I'm sure somewhere someone would have jumped on the "meaning behind the the pre-recording" or the huge "scam" of them not amplifying their music for everyone to hear if they hadn't explained it themselves. But it's still kind of sad really how, even such a simple and well-thought out decision would have likely been blown out of proportion.
The Name Game
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/01/21/obama-called-different-names-inaugural-ceremony/
Ever since Barack Obama's middle name, "Hussein", was made public knowledge people have feared the worst, being reminded, of course, of Saddam Hussein. As this article points out, Obama's middle name was downplayed during his campaign, supporters obviously worried it would cost him votes. But I was surprised to read this article after the election, in which the author claims significance behind the announcer calling Obama "Barack H. Obama" and the Rev. Joseph Lowery's addressing him simply as "Barack Obama." I thought we'd moved beyond the matter of his second name. To be honest, I hardly noticed the fact that Obama was addressed in three slightly different ways throughout the inauguration. It didn't seem significant to me. Obviously to some people it is though.
"The tradition is that they use all three names and I will follow the tradition," said Obama on the matter, after he became the President-elect last November. I'm glad he decided this. I see no reason why he should be feared for a name. He didn't name himself after all, and it's his decisions that we should be judging by as he prepares to lead the country.
Ever since Barack Obama's middle name, "Hussein", was made public knowledge people have feared the worst, being reminded, of course, of Saddam Hussein. As this article points out, Obama's middle name was downplayed during his campaign, supporters obviously worried it would cost him votes. But I was surprised to read this article after the election, in which the author claims significance behind the announcer calling Obama "Barack H. Obama" and the Rev. Joseph Lowery's addressing him simply as "Barack Obama." I thought we'd moved beyond the matter of his second name. To be honest, I hardly noticed the fact that Obama was addressed in three slightly different ways throughout the inauguration. It didn't seem significant to me. Obviously to some people it is though.
"The tradition is that they use all three names and I will follow the tradition," said Obama on the matter, after he became the President-elect last November. I'm glad he decided this. I see no reason why he should be feared for a name. He didn't name himself after all, and it's his decisions that we should be judging by as he prepares to lead the country.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Facebook....how do we solve the problem of who's really who?
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7807466.stm
I thought this article was really interesting because it details with a specific
case of impersonation on Facebook. I know that on the terms of service etc.
Facebook warns you that you must only sign up as yourself and that it must be
your true name (not that anyone really pays much attention to this part). I also
know that lots of times, especially with public figures, people wonder if the
account is legitimately operated by the person whose name appears in the
profile. And to be honest, there is no real way to know for sure. In fact,
there's not really anyway to make sure that the people you are "friending" are
actually your friends. But the people who use Facebook just have to deal with
this and be careful, there's not much that can be done about it- right? Aren't
these kind of risks inherent with a "social networking" site? This is where it
gets interesting. When you defame some one on Facebook are you committing libel?
How is Facebook supposed to keep tabs on this kind of stuff?
Obviously when discrepancies are brought to notice something needs to be done to
sort out the issue but it seems to me that these kind of things are going to
happen all the time and it’s simply a constant risk in this “age of technology”
that if you are a public figure someone might try and defame you. Facebook is
now just one of the many ways people can try and challenge the reputations of
those they don’t like.
I think everyone needs to take whatever they read by a stranger on Facebook with
a grain of salt. This kind of stuff happens all the time on the internet,
Facebook is just another, perhaps easier, way of impersonating someone online.
Just because Facebook warns people to be truthful it doesn’t mean they abide by
this rule, I think users should treat the website as they would any other online
source, with caution.
I thought this article was really interesting because it details with a specific
case of impersonation on Facebook. I know that on the terms of service etc.
Facebook warns you that you must only sign up as yourself and that it must be
your true name (not that anyone really pays much attention to this part). I also
know that lots of times, especially with public figures, people wonder if the
account is legitimately operated by the person whose name appears in the
profile. And to be honest, there is no real way to know for sure. In fact,
there's not really anyway to make sure that the people you are "friending" are
actually your friends. But the people who use Facebook just have to deal with
this and be careful, there's not much that can be done about it- right? Aren't
these kind of risks inherent with a "social networking" site? This is where it
gets interesting. When you defame some one on Facebook are you committing libel?
How is Facebook supposed to keep tabs on this kind of stuff?
Obviously when discrepancies are brought to notice something needs to be done to
sort out the issue but it seems to me that these kind of things are going to
happen all the time and it’s simply a constant risk in this “age of technology”
that if you are a public figure someone might try and defame you. Facebook is
now just one of the many ways people can try and challenge the reputations of
those they don’t like.
I think everyone needs to take whatever they read by a stranger on Facebook with
a grain of salt. This kind of stuff happens all the time on the internet,
Facebook is just another, perhaps easier, way of impersonating someone online.
Just because Facebook warns people to be truthful it doesn’t mean they abide by
this rule, I think users should treat the website as they would any other online
source, with caution.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Freedom of the Press....? [this was from the week before break but I accidentally deleted the original, sorry!]
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7408451.stm
This article discusses an attack by the press on Princess Beatrice, the daughter of the Dutchess of York. This includes a barrage of criticism following the release of a photograph of Beatrice wearing a bikini while on holiday. According to the article, Beatrice has been called "horrible names" and been made fun of for her size 10 figure. The article also discusses the involvement of the Duchess of York with fighting obesity.
In particular, what really stood out to me in this article was a question posed by the Dutchess herself "I understand freedom of the press but what I don't understand is when it takes a regular, very healthy girl and tries to completely obliterate her confidence."
So how much "freedom" should the press really have? Public figures can expect criticism of their every move and feature, everyone from Brittany Spears to George W. Bush to Queen Elizabeth II are constantly under scrutiny, their every flaw or mistake publicized and often played up. But this fact doesn't make it right. It is definately unfair that public figures, particularly those born into the role, have next to near no privacy. And though I know that the press will always be searching for flaws in their subjects (and that the public will always want to know about them) I do think it is the responsability of journalists and the like, despite the freedoms given to them, to act responsibly and be concious of the feelings of their subjects. So what if Beatrice is a size 10? Isn't that her own business? Something like that has no real public importance and it really isn't the business of the press to take pictures and obsess over something personal like that. Though I agree with freedom of the press, I think they should be a little more careful in how they interpret and use that freedom. Save it for something important, a scenario where the public really and truly needs to know all the details.
This article discusses an attack by the press on Princess Beatrice, the daughter of the Dutchess of York. This includes a barrage of criticism following the release of a photograph of Beatrice wearing a bikini while on holiday. According to the article, Beatrice has been called "horrible names" and been made fun of for her size 10 figure. The article also discusses the involvement of the Duchess of York with fighting obesity.
In particular, what really stood out to me in this article was a question posed by the Dutchess herself "I understand freedom of the press but what I don't understand is when it takes a regular, very healthy girl and tries to completely obliterate her confidence."
So how much "freedom" should the press really have? Public figures can expect criticism of their every move and feature, everyone from Brittany Spears to George W. Bush to Queen Elizabeth II are constantly under scrutiny, their every flaw or mistake publicized and often played up. But this fact doesn't make it right. It is definately unfair that public figures, particularly those born into the role, have next to near no privacy. And though I know that the press will always be searching for flaws in their subjects (and that the public will always want to know about them) I do think it is the responsability of journalists and the like, despite the freedoms given to them, to act responsibly and be concious of the feelings of their subjects. So what if Beatrice is a size 10? Isn't that her own business? Something like that has no real public importance and it really isn't the business of the press to take pictures and obsess over something personal like that. Though I agree with freedom of the press, I think they should be a little more careful in how they interpret and use that freedom. Save it for something important, a scenario where the public really and truly needs to know all the details.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Presidential Canine Debate
link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/16/obama.puppy.poll/index.html
I have read many different articles in regards to what kind of dog future President Obama should bring with him to the White House and have finally decided that I have to comment on one of them. First of all, despite all the polls and debates sparked by the question I think that it should really be the Obama family's decision on what kind of dog they get. I know many agree with me. A part from anything, a dog's personality etc. cannot be determined fully from its breed. Though the breed of the dog can be an indicator of certain characteristics and needs every dog should be evaluated as an individual. Not to say that having a "type" of dog in mind isn't valuable before you go looking. Particularly as the Obama's need a hypoallergenic (or as close to as possible, many argue there is no such thing as a truly hypoallergenic dog-dander comes from dogs' saliva and skin) canine. Some breeds are better suited to those with allergies than others. So yes, the Obama's need to keep that in mind.
As far as whether they should get the dog from a shelter, breeder or a petstore I say ABSOLUTELY NOT a petstore. Not with all the puppy mills out there. There are plenty of dogs available from other sources that don't potentially support a cruel and barbaric industry. And I'd hope that the Obama's would set a concious and animal friendly example by adopting a pet in need of a home from a shelter. So many millions of dogs are in shelters across the U.S. (see article) surely the Obama's could find one suitable for their family and give it a better home. Also, having a former shelter dog in the White House would bring attention to the plights of shelter animals, hey-the Obama's pet could even be an abassador of sorts. It would certaintly send a humane and conscientious message if the Obama's were able to adopt. Or at least considered adoption as their first option, even if they are set on a particular breed. It is a common misconception that "purebred" dogs rarely show up in pounds. They do. And there are plenty of breed specific resque groups out there. Of course, the Obama's need to do what's right for their family. I just hope they will consider adoption and save a dog from a potentially unhappy fate. More and more dogs are bred every year and more and more shelter dogs are "humanely euthanized" because there is no room for them in the shelters. And as I previously mentioned, pet stores are not exactly in a good light at the moment, not with all the issues of recieving animals from puppy mills.
Obama has a responsibility to his family to make sure that he gets the right dog. He has a responsibilty to the dog to make sure he can care for it and give it it's forever home. But he also has a responsibility to avoid supporting a cruel industry by not choosing the route of buying a puppy from a petstore.
In regards to the poll mentioned in the article, I found it rather silly that such breeds as golden retrievers and german shepards were included in the selections of the vote, particularly as the article highlights at the top that the Obama's need a HYPOALLERGENIC dog. Um, golden retrievers and german shepards hypoallergenic-uh, I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, they are wonderful dogs. But they are definately not a good choice for someone with allergies to dogs. To be honest, I really don't see what the point was in including them in the poll.
And finally, I find it very interesting to see how much interest the "election" of Presidential Best-Friend has generated. It just goes to show people are interested in the more personal things AND Americans consider pets important. :) Still, I hope that in the end the Obama family ignores the polls and chooses the newest member of their family with the best interests of their family, and the dog, in mind.
I have read many different articles in regards to what kind of dog future President Obama should bring with him to the White House and have finally decided that I have to comment on one of them. First of all, despite all the polls and debates sparked by the question I think that it should really be the Obama family's decision on what kind of dog they get. I know many agree with me. A part from anything, a dog's personality etc. cannot be determined fully from its breed. Though the breed of the dog can be an indicator of certain characteristics and needs every dog should be evaluated as an individual. Not to say that having a "type" of dog in mind isn't valuable before you go looking. Particularly as the Obama's need a hypoallergenic (or as close to as possible, many argue there is no such thing as a truly hypoallergenic dog-dander comes from dogs' saliva and skin) canine. Some breeds are better suited to those with allergies than others. So yes, the Obama's need to keep that in mind.
As far as whether they should get the dog from a shelter, breeder or a petstore I say ABSOLUTELY NOT a petstore. Not with all the puppy mills out there. There are plenty of dogs available from other sources that don't potentially support a cruel and barbaric industry. And I'd hope that the Obama's would set a concious and animal friendly example by adopting a pet in need of a home from a shelter. So many millions of dogs are in shelters across the U.S. (see article) surely the Obama's could find one suitable for their family and give it a better home. Also, having a former shelter dog in the White House would bring attention to the plights of shelter animals, hey-the Obama's pet could even be an abassador of sorts. It would certaintly send a humane and conscientious message if the Obama's were able to adopt. Or at least considered adoption as their first option, even if they are set on a particular breed. It is a common misconception that "purebred" dogs rarely show up in pounds. They do. And there are plenty of breed specific resque groups out there. Of course, the Obama's need to do what's right for their family. I just hope they will consider adoption and save a dog from a potentially unhappy fate. More and more dogs are bred every year and more and more shelter dogs are "humanely euthanized" because there is no room for them in the shelters. And as I previously mentioned, pet stores are not exactly in a good light at the moment, not with all the issues of recieving animals from puppy mills.
Obama has a responsibility to his family to make sure that he gets the right dog. He has a responsibilty to the dog to make sure he can care for it and give it it's forever home. But he also has a responsibility to avoid supporting a cruel industry by not choosing the route of buying a puppy from a petstore.
In regards to the poll mentioned in the article, I found it rather silly that such breeds as golden retrievers and german shepards were included in the selections of the vote, particularly as the article highlights at the top that the Obama's need a HYPOALLERGENIC dog. Um, golden retrievers and german shepards hypoallergenic-uh, I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, they are wonderful dogs. But they are definately not a good choice for someone with allergies to dogs. To be honest, I really don't see what the point was in including them in the poll.
And finally, I find it very interesting to see how much interest the "election" of Presidential Best-Friend has generated. It just goes to show people are interested in the more personal things AND Americans consider pets important. :) Still, I hope that in the end the Obama family ignores the polls and chooses the newest member of their family with the best interests of their family, and the dog, in mind.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Under the Public Eye **THE TITLE WAS POSTED ON NOVEMBER 5TH BUT I ACTUALLY WROTE THIS RESPONSE DECEMBER 11TH**
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7708878.stm
In regards to the issues addressed in this article, I think it is
absolutely necessary for the plight of these children to be investigated, whether by well-known public figures or others. The fact that the TV program will feature important public figures just means that the children's situation will get more attention and hopefully means that their conditions will improve sooner.
Being that The Duchess of York is involved in many children charities I do not see the visits as a political attack on Turkey. If Turkey is to enter the EU then they have to be up to standard with human welfare conditions. As the ITV spokeswoman said: " This is a valid area of public interest at a time when the UK government is endorsing the accession of Turkey into the EU." People do need to know what kind of situation the children are in, particularly as Turkey had previously stated that conditions were improving.
True, making it a secret visit
particularly
playing off that idea in naming the TV program as "Duchess and Daughters: Their Secret Mission" does make it seem less official and maybe make it seem as though the Duchess doesn't trust Turkey enough to make a public visit, which may have angered the people in charge of human welfare in that country. However, it would hardly be the first time public figures have disguised themselves to investigate a cause they are passionate about.
As for the article it is relatively balanced and does not lean to either side. It gives quotes from both sides and starts by showing the point of view of the accusers. Though there is a little bit more information from the side of the Duchess and the TV channel producing the documentary, this is only because it is countering the attack and had more people to gather information from (ie. The Duchess, her daughters and the ITV spokespeople).
In regards to the issues addressed in this article, I think it is
absolutely necessary for the plight of these children to be investigated, whether by well-known public figures or others. The fact that the TV program will feature important public figures just means that the children's situation will get more attention and hopefully means that their conditions will improve sooner.
Being that The Duchess of York is involved in many children charities I do not see the visits as a political attack on Turkey. If Turkey is to enter the EU then they have to be up to standard with human welfare conditions. As the ITV spokeswoman said: " This is a valid area of public interest at a time when the UK government is endorsing the accession of Turkey into the EU." People do need to know what kind of situation the children are in, particularly as Turkey had previously stated that conditions were improving.
True, making it a secret visit
particularly
playing off that idea in naming the TV program as "Duchess and Daughters: Their Secret Mission" does make it seem less official and maybe make it seem as though the Duchess doesn't trust Turkey enough to make a public visit, which may have angered the people in charge of human welfare in that country. However, it would hardly be the first time public figures have disguised themselves to investigate a cause they are passionate about.
As for the article it is relatively balanced and does not lean to either side. It gives quotes from both sides and starts by showing the point of view of the accusers. Though there is a little bit more information from the side of the Duchess and the TV channel producing the documentary, this is only because it is countering the attack and had more people to gather information from (ie. The Duchess, her daughters and the ITV spokespeople).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
